CQ-Contest
[Top] [All Lists]

[CQ-Contest] “FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016” to affect

To: cq-contest <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: [CQ-Contest] “FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016” to affect towers and masts over 50' in height.
From: donovanf@starpower.net
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2016 16:27:50 -0400 (EDT)
List-post: <cq-contest@contesting.com">mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
forwarded from the Topband Reflector 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Donald Chester" <k4kyv@hotmail.com> 
To: topband@contesting.com 
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2016 8:07:51 PM 
Subject: Topband: “FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016” to affect 
towers and masts over 50' in height. 

It looks like this one was sneaked in over us, but it has the potential of 
severely affecting amateur radio towers and antennas. I have seen no mention of 
this from ARRL, and the news just appeared a couple of days ago in discussions 
on QRZ.com and the Tower Talk reflector. 

New rules would require alternating orange and white paint and obstruction 
lighting on towers and poles over 50' tall. Apparently meteorological testing 
towers and cellphone masts have been popping up unexpectedly in rural areas 
serviced by crop dusters, and this has become a concern not only by crop 
dusters, but other low-flying air traffic like medical evacuation and 
news-reporting helicopters. Towers, poles and masts between 50' and 200', below 
the current minimum height (except near an airport) of 200 feet, out in open 
fields, have resulted in collisions with the masts or their guy wires. 

As part of new FAA funding legislation, submitted as H.R.636, "In addition to 
medical reforms, the legislation requires the FAA to develop regulations for 
marking towers between 50 and 200 feet tall to improve their visibility to 
low-flying aircraft and help prevent accidents." 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/636/text#toc-H30D0818F111541BFBEF0B8CAE5702C4B
 
or 
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr636/text 

This the organisation that has lobbied for the legislation: 
http://www.agaviation.org/Files/policyinitiatives/Advocacy%20Papers/Tower%20Issue%20Paper%20FINAL.pdf
 

Here is some of their recent propaganda: 
http://www.agaviation.org/files/policyinitiatives/Tower%20Public%20Outreach/ad2.pdf
 
http://www.agaviation.org/files/policyinitiatives/Tower%20Public%20Outreach/ad6.pdf
 
http://www.agaviation.org/towerspolicy 

The location definitions and the exclusions MAY let most amateurs out of the 
requirement, if the tower is located fairly close to the house and associated 
structures (the farmstead curtilage): (ii) EXCLUSIONS.—The term “covered tower” 
does not include any structure that— (I) is adjacent to a house, barn, electric 
utility station, or other building... 

Towers with a shelter (dog-house in broadcast engineering parlance) near the 
base to house the antenna tuning unit might be excluded. It all depends on how 
the bureaucrats define "adjacent", "building", "curtilage", etc. 

http://thelawdictionary.org/curtilage/ 
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/curtilage 
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/curtilage 

The motivating concern with this legislation is isolated towers out in the 
middle of a field on prime farm land that may be serviced by crop sprayers, 
which explains why the 'curtilage' of a house or farm outbuilding supposedly 
exempts the tower. The danger we face is the propensity of government agencies 
to enact 'one-size-fits-all' wording in laws and regulations, so that in fact 
they are still applicable in situations totally removed and unrelated to the 
purpose behind the legislation. Typical of the government to use a back hoe 
where a garden spade would have done the job. 

It would be VERY expensive for most hams to paint their towers and mark them 
with obstruction lighting, or install obstruction markers on wire antennas. 
This has the potential of affecting those of us living in rural areas as 
severely HOAs and zoning ordinances are affecting hams in urban residential 
areas. It could particularly be a problem for topband operators, since our most 
effective antennas are likely to exceed 50 feet in height. 

Don k4kyv 

_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • [CQ-Contest] “FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016” to affect towers and masts over 50' in height., donovanf <=